dl 

cose 


ALL 


IMPRESSMENTS 


UNLAWFUL 


AND 


INADMISSIBLE. 


PHILADELPHIA, 

PRINTED   BT  £.   GRAV.ES^    NO.  40,   NORfff  FOURfH   SfREMf. 


>,. 


357 

,s. 

Q 


r\ 


AN 
IMPORTANT 

AND 

LUMINOUS  COMMUNICATION 

ON    THE 

SUBJECT  OF  THE 
IMPRESSMENT  OF  AMERICAN  AND  FOREIGN 

SEAMEN 
AND  OTHER  PERSONS. 


IT  has  become  manifest  to  every  attentive  observer,  that 
the  early  and  continued  aggressions  of  Great  Britain  on  our  per- 
sons, our  property,  and  our  rights,  imperiously  demand  a  firm 
stand — an  effectual,  though  calm  system  of  measures  of  ar- 
restation.  For  this  purpose,  it  is  our  duty  to  make  ourselres 
completely  masters  of  the  great  truths  and  arguments  by  which 
our  rights  have  been  elucidated,  supported  and  maintained. 

On  the  17th  of  January,  1806,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  communicated  to  Congress  an  extract  from  a  dispatch  of 
James  Madison,  Esq.  our  secretary  of  state,  to  James  Monroe 
Esq.  our  minister  in  London,  which  contains  many  facts  highly- 
important,  and  observations  and  arguments  perfectly  satisfactory 
and  conclusive  against "  impressments  of  seamen  and  passengers, 
whether  Foreign  or  American,  on  board  of  our  vessels."  The 
re-  publication  of  that  document  at  this  crisis  will  at  once  display 
some  of  the  reasons  on  which  the  government  has  probably  de- 
clined to  sanction  the  recent  draught  of  a  treaty  with  Great  Bri- 
tain, and  will  elucidate  the  ground  on  which  the  question  of  the 
impressment  of  persons,  both  native  and  alien,  has  been  rested  by 
our  administration. 


Extract  of  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  James  Monroe^ 
Esq.  dated  5th  January,   1804. 

We  consider  a  neutral  flag,  on  the  high  seas,  as  a  safeguard 
;o  those  sailing  under  it.  Great  Britain,  on  the  contrary,  as- 
serts a  right  to  search  for,  and  seize  her  own  subjects  j  and  un- 


- 


der  that  cover,  as  cannot  but  happen,  are  often  seized  and  taken 
off,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  citizens  or  subjects  of 
other  neutral  countries,  navigating  the  high  seas,  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  American  flag. 

Were  the  right  of  Great  Britain,  in  this  case,  not  denied,  the 
abuses  flowing  from  it,  would  justify  the  United  States  in  claim- 
ing and  expecting  a  discontinuance  of  its  exercise.  But  the 
right  is  denied,  and  on  the  best  grounds. 

Although  Great  Britain  has  not  yet  adopted,  in  the  same  lati- 
tude with  most  other  nations,  the  immunities  of  a  neutral  flag, 
she  will  not  deny  the  general  freedom  of  the  high  seas,  and  of 
neutral  vessels  na\igating  them,  with  such  exceptions  only  as 
are  annexed  to  it  by  the  law  of  nations.  She  must  produce  then 
such  an  exception  in  the  law  of  nations,  in  favor  of  the  right  she 
contends  for.  But  in  what  written  and  received  authority  will 
she  find  it .?  in  what  usage  except  her  own,  will  it  be  found  ?  She 
will  find  in  both,  that  a  neutral  vessel  does  not  protect  certain 
objects  denominated  contraband  of  war,  including  enemies  serv- 
ing in  the  war,  nor  articles  going  into  a  blockaded  port,  nor  as 
she  has  maintained,  and  as  we  have  not  contested,  enemies  pro- 
perty of  any  kind.  But  no  where  will  she  find  an  exception  to 
this  freedom  of  the  seas,  and  of  neutral  flags,  which  justifies 
the  taking  away  of  any  person,  not  an  tnemy  in  military  service, 
found  on  board  a  neutral  vessel. 

If  treaties,  British  as  well  as  others,  are  to  be  consulted  oft 
this  subject,  it  will  equally  appear,  that  no  countenance  to  the 
practice  can  be  found  in  them.  Whilst  they  admit  a  contraband 
of  war,  by  enumerating  its  articles,  and  the  effect  of  a  real 
blockade  by  defining  it,  'in  no  instance  do  they  affirm  or  imply  a 
right  in  any  sovcrtign  to  inforce  his  claims  to  the  allegiance  of  his 
subjrctsi  on  board  neutral  vessels  on  the  high  seas.  On  the  con- 
trary, whenever  a  belligerent  claim  against  persons  on  board  a 
neutral  vessel,  is  refered  to  in  treaties,  enemies  in  military  ser- 
vice alone  are  excepted  from  the  general  immunity  of  persons  in 
that  situation;  and  this  exception  confirms  the  immunity  of 
those  who  are  not  included  in  it. 

It  is.  not  then  from  the  law  or  the  usage  of  nations,  nor  from 
the  tenor  of  the  treaties,  that  any  sanction  can  be  derived  for 
the  practice  in  question.  And  surely  it  will  not  be  pretenfled 
that  the  sovereignty  of  any  nation,  extends  in  any  case  whatever, 
beyond  its  own  dominions ,  and  its  own  -vessels  on  the  high  seas. 
Such  a  doctrine  would  give  just  alarm  to  all  nations,  and  more 
than  any  thing  would  countenance  the  imputation  of  aspiring  to 
an  universal  empire  of  the  seas.  It  would  be  the  less  admissible 
too,  as  it  would  be  applicable  to  times  of  peace,  as  well  as  to 
times  of  war,  and  to  property  as  well  as  to  persons..  If  the  la> 


( 

of  allegiance,  which  is  a  municipal  law,  be  in  force  at  all  on  the 
high  seas,  on  board  foreign  vessels,  it  must  be  so  at  all  times 
there,  as  it  is  within  its  acknowledged  sphere.  If  the  reason  alleged 
for  it  be  good  injtime  of  war,  namely,  that  the  sovereign  has  then  a 
right  to  the  service  of  all  his  subjects,  it  must  bo  good  at  all  times, 
because  at  all  times  he  has  the  same  right  to  their  service.  War 
is  not  the  only  occasion  for  which  he  may  want  their  services,  nor 
is  external  danger  the  only  danger  against  which  their  services 
Hjay  be  required,  for  his  security.  Again  ;  if  the  authority  of  a 
mumcifial  law  can  operate  on  persons  in  foreign  vessels  on  the 
high  seas,  because  within  the  dominion  of  their  sovereign  they 
would  be  subject  to  that  law,  and  are  violating  that  law  by  being 
in  that  situation,  how  reject  the  inference  that  the  authority  of  a 
Uiunicifiall&vf  may  equally  be  enforced,  on  board  foreign  vessels, 
on  the  high  seam  against  articles  of  firofierty  exported  in  viola- 
tion of  such  a  laift  or  belonging  to  the  count;  y  from  which  it  was 
exported  ?  and  thus  every  commercial  regulation,  in  time  of 
peace  too,  as  well  as  of  war,  would  be  made  obligatory  on  foreign- 
ers and  their  vessels,  not  only  whilst  within  the  dominion  of  the 
sovereign  making  the  regulation,  but  in  every  sea,  and  at  every 
distance  where  an  armed  vessel  might  meet  with  them.  Ano- 
ther inference  deserves  attention.  If  the  subjects  of  one  sove- 
reign may  be  taken  by  force  from  the  vessels  of  another,  on  the 
high  seas,  the  right  of  taking  them  when  found,  implies  the 
right  of  searching  for  them,  a  vexation  of  commerce,  especially 
in  the  time  of  peace,  which  has  not  yet  been  attempted,  and 
which  for  that  as  well  as  other  reasons,  may  be  regarded  as  con- 
tradicting the  principle,  from  which  it  would  flow. 

Taking  reason  and  justice  for  the  tests  of  this  practice,  it  is 
peculiarly  indefensible  ;  because  it  deprives  thr  dearest  rights  of 
a  regular  trial^  to  which  the  most  inconsiderable  article  of  pro- 
perty captured  on  the  high  seas,  is  entitled  ;  and  leaves  their 
destiny  to  the  will  of  an  officer,  sometimes  cruel,  often  ignorant, 
and  generally  interested  by  his  want  of  mariners,  in  his  own  de- 
cisions. Whenever  property  found  in  a  neutral  vessel,  is  sup- 
posed to  be  liable,  on  any  grounds  to  capture  and  condemnation, 
the  rule  in  all  cases  is  that  the  question  shall  not  be  decided  by 
the  captor,  but  be  carried  before  a  legal  tribunal,  where  a  regu- 
lar trial  may  be  had,  and  where  the  captor  himself  is  liable  to 
damages,  for  an  abuse  of  his  power.  Can  it  be  reasonable  then, 
or  just,  that  a  belligerent  commander,  who  is  thus  restricted, 
and  thus  responsible  in  a  case  of  mere  property  of  trivial  amount, 
shold  be  permitted,  without  recurring  to  any  tribunal  whatever, 
to  examine  the  crew  of  a  neutral  vessel,  to  decide  the  important 
question  of  their  respective  allegiances,  and  to  carry  that  deci- 
sio'rt  into  instant  execution,  by  forcing  every  individual  he  may 
chuse,  into  a  service  abhorent  to  his  feelings,  cutting  him  off 
from  his  most  tender  connections,  exposing  his  mind  and  his 


person  to  the  most  humiliating  discipline,  and  his  life  itself  to  the 
greatest  dangers  ?  Reason,  justice  and  humanity  unite  in  pro- 
testing against  so  extravagant  a  proceeding.     And  what  is  the 
pretext  fork?  It  is  that  the  similarity  of  language  and  of  fea- 
tures between  American  citizens  and  British  subjects,  are  such 
as  not  easily  to  be  distinguished ;  and  that  without  this  arbitrary 
and  summary  authority  to  make  the  distinction,  British  subjects 
would  escape,  under  the  name  of  American  citizens-  from  the 
duty  which  they  owe  to  their  sovereign.     Is  then  the  difficulty  of 
distinguishing  a  mariner  of  one  country  from  the  mariner  of  the. 
other,  and  the  importance  of  his  services,  a  good  plea  for  refer- 
ing  the  question  whether  he  belongs  to  the  one  or  to  the  other, 
to  an  arbiir  iry  decision  on  the  spot,  by  an  interested  and  unrespon- 
sible  officer  ?  In  all  other  cases,  the  difficulty  and  the  importance 
of  questions  are  considered  as  reasons  for  requiring  greater  care 
and  formality  in  investigating  them,  and  grea^yrsecurity  for  a  1 
right  decision  on  them.     To  say  that  precautions  of  this  sort  are    1 
incompatible  with  the  object  is  to  admit  the  objectis  unjustifiable  ;  / 
since  the  only  means  by  which  it  can  be  pursued  are  such  as  can;/ 
not  be  justified. 

The  evil  takes  a  deeper  die,  when  viewed  in  its  practice  as 
well  as  its*  principles.  Were  it  allowable  that  British  subjects 
should  be  taken  out  of  American  vessels  on  the  high  seas,  it 
might  at  least  be  required  that  the  proof  of  their  allegiance 
should  lie  on  the  British  side.  This  obvious  and  just  rule  is, 
however,  reversed ;  and  every  seaman  on  board,  though  going 
from  an  American  port,  and  sailing  under  the  American  flag, 
and  sometimes  even  speaking  an  idiom  proving  him  not  to  be  a 
British  subjec',  is  presumed  to  be  such,  unless  shewn  to  be  an 
American  citizen.  It  may  safely  be  affirmed  that  this  is  an 
outrage  and  an  indignity  which  has  no  precedent,  and  which 
Great  Britain  would  be  among  the  last  nations  in  the  world  to 
suffer,  if  offered  to  her  own  subjects,  and  her  own  flag.  Nor 
is  it  ^always  against  the  right  presumption  alone,  which  is  in 
favor  of  the  citizenship  corresponding  with  the  flag,  that  the 
violence  is  committed.  Not  un frequently  it  takes  place  in 
defiance  of  the  most  positive  proof,  certified  in  due  form  by 
an  American  officer.  Let  it  not  be  said,  that  in  granting  to 
American  seamen  this  protec  ion  for  their  rights  as  such,  the 
point  is  yielded,  that  the  pro'of  lies  on  the  American  side,  and 
that  the  want  of  it  in  the  prescribed  form  justifies  the  inference 
that  the  seamen  is  not  of  American  allegiance.  It  is  distinctly 
to  be  understood,  that  the  certificate  usually  called  a  protection 
to  American  seamen,  is  not  meant  to  protect  them  under  their 
'own,  or  even  a~iy  oth<r  neutral  flag  on  the  high  seas.  We  can 
never  admit,  that  in  such  a  situation,  any  other  protection  is 


required  for  them,  than  the  neutral  flag  itself  on  the  high  seas. 
The  document  is  given  to  prove  their  real  character,  in  situations 
to  which  neither  the  law  of  nations,  nor  the  law  of  their  own 
country,  are  applicable ;  in  other  words,  to  protect  them  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  British  laws,  and  to  secure  to  them,  within 
every  other  jurisdiction,  the  rights  and  immunities  due  to  them. 
If,  in  the  course  of  their  navigation  even  on  the  high  seas,  the 
document  should  have  the  effect  of  repelling  wrongs  of  any 
sort,  it  is  an  incidental  advantage  only,  of  which  they  avail 
themselves,  and  is  by  no  means  to  be  misconstrued  into  a  right 
to  exact  such  a  proof,  or  to  make  any  disadvantageous  inference 
from  the  want  of  it. 

Were  it  even  admitted,  that  certificates  for  protection  might 
be  justly  required  in  time  of  war,  from  American  seamen,  they 
could  only  be  required  in  cases  where  the  lapse  of  time 
from  its  commencement,  had  given  an  opportunity  for  the 
American  seamen  to  provide  themselves  with  such  a  document. 
Yet  it  is  certain,  that  in  a  variety  of  instances,  seamen  have  been 
impressed  from  American  vessels,  on  the  plea  that  they  had  not 
this  proof  of  citizenship,  when  the  dates  and  places  of  the 
impressments  demonstrated  the  impossibility  of  their  knowing 
in  time  to  provide  the  proof,  that  a  state  of  war  had  rendered, 
it  necessary. 

Whether,  therefore,  we  consult  the  law  of  nations,  the  tenor 
of  treat  es,  or  the  dictates  of  reason  and  justice,  no  warrant, 
no  pretext  can  be  found  fjr  the  British  ftractice  of  making 
impressments  from  American  -vessels  on  the  high  seas. 

Great  Britain  has  the  less  to  say  in  excuse  for  this  practice, 
as  it  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  principles,  on  which  she 
proceeds  in  other  cases  Whilst  she  claims  and  seizes  on  the 
high  seas,  her  own  subjects,  voluntarily  serving  in  American 
vessels,  she  has  constantly  given,  when  she  could  give,  as  reason 
for  not  discharging  from  her  service  American  citizens,  that 
they  had  voluntarily  engaged  in  it.  Nay,  mere,  whilst  she 
impresses  her  ©wn  subjects  from  the  American  service,  although 
they  may  have  been  settled  and  married,  and  even  naturalized 
in  the  United  States,  she  constantly  refuses  to  release  from 
hers,  American  citizens  impressed  into  it,  whenever  she  can 
give  for  a  reason,  that  they  were  either  settled  or  married  with  in 
her  dominions.  Thus,  when  the  voluntary  consent  of  the 
individual  favors  her  pretensions,  she  pleads  the  validity  of  that 
consent.  When  the  voluntary  consent  of  the  individuals  stands 
in  the  way  of  her  pretensions,  it  goes  for  nothing'  I  When  mar- 
riage or  residence  can  be  pleaded  in  her  favor,  she  avails  herself 
of  the  plea.  When  marriage  and  residence  and  even  naturali- 
zation are  against  her,  no  respect  whatever  is  paid  to  either ! 


She  takes,  by  force,  her  own  subjects  voluntarily  serving  in  our 
vessels.  She  keeps  by  force  American  citizens  involuntarily 
serving  in  hers.  More  flagrant  inconsistencies  cannot  be 
imagined. 

Notwithstanding  the  powerful  motives,  which  ought  to  be  felt 
by  the  British  government  to  relinquish  a  practice  which  exposes 
it  to  so  many  reproaches,  it  is  foreseen,  that  objections  of  differ- 
ent sorts  will  be  pressed  on  you.  You  will  be  told  first,  of  the 
great  number  of  British  seamen  in  the  American  trade,  and  of 
the  necessity  for  their  services  in  time  of  war  aqd  danger.  Se- 
condly, of  the  right  and  the-  prejudice  of  the  British  nation  with 
respect  to  what  are  called  the  British  or  narrow  seas,  where 
its  domain  would  be  abandoned  by  the  general  stipulation  requi- 
red.- Thirdly,  of  the  use  which  would  be  made  of  such  a  sanctu- 
ary as  that  of  American  vessels,  for  desertions,  and  traitorous 
communications  to  her  enemies,  especially  across  the  channel 
to  France. 

1st.  With  respect  to  the  British  seamen  serving  in  our  trade, 
it  may  be  remarked,  first,  that  the  number,  though  considerable, 
is  probably  less  than  may  be  supposed,  Secondly,  that  what  is 
wrong  in  itself  cannot  be  made  right  by  considerations  of  expe- 
diency or  advantage.  Thirdly,  that  it  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
the  number  of  real  British  subjects  gained  by  the  practice  in 
question,  is  of  considerable  importance  even  in  the  scale  of  advan- 
tage. The  annexed  report  to  congress  on  the  subject  of  im- 
pressments, with  the  addition  of  such  cases  as  may  be  in  the 
hands  of  Mr.  Erving,  then  our  consul  in  London,  will  verify  the 
remark  in  its  application  to  the  present,  war.  The  statement 
made  by  his  predecessor  during  the  last  war,  and  which  is  also 
annexed,  is  in  the  same  view  still  more  conclusive.  The  state- 
ment comprehends  not  only  all  the  applications  made  by  him  in 
the  first  instance,  for  the  liberation  of  impressed  seamen,  between 
the  month  of  June,  1797,  and  Sept.  1801,  but  many  also  which 
had  been  made  previous  to  this  agency,  by  Mr.  Pinckney  and 
Mr.  King,  and  which  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  renew.  These 
appl'cations  therefore  may  fairly  be  considered  as  embracing  the 
greater  part  of  the  period  of  the  war  ;  and  as  applications  are 
known  to  be  pretty  indiscriminately  made,  they  may  further  be 
considered  as  embracing  if  not  the  whole,  the  far  greater  part  of 
the  impressments,  those  of  British  subjects  as  well  as  others. 
Yet  the  result  exhibits  2,059  cases  only,  and  of  this  number  102 
seamen  only,  detained  as  being  British  subjects,  which  is  less 
than  2 1  of  the  number  impressed,  and  1,142  discharged  or  or- 
dered to  be  so,  as  not  being  British  subjects,  which  is  more  than 
half  of  the  whole  number,  leaving  805  for  further  proof,  with  the 
strongest  presumption,  that  the  greater  part,  if  not  the  V 


were  Americans  or  other  aliens,  whose  proof  of  citizenship  had 
been  lost  or  destroyed,  or  whose  situation  would  account  for  the 
difficulties  and  delays  in  producing  it.  So  that  it  is  certain,  that 
for  all  the  British  seamen  gained  by  this  violent  proceeding, 
more  than  an  equal  number,  who  were  not  so,  were  the  victims ; 
it  is  highly  probable  that  for  every  British  seamen  so  gained,  a 
number  of  others,  less  than  10  for  one,  must  have  been  the  vic- 
tims, and  it  is  even  possible  that  this  number  may  have  exceeded 
the  proportion  of  twenty  to  one. 

-*  It  cannot  therefore  be  doubted,  that  the  acquisition  of  British 
seamen,  by  these  impressments,  whatever  may  be  its  advantage, 
is  lost  in  the  wrong  done  to  Americans  ignorantly  or  willfully- 
mistaken  for  British  subjects,  in  the  jealousy  and  ill-will  excited 
among  all  maritime  nations  by  an  adherence  to  such  a  practice, 
and  in  the  particular  provocation  to  measures  of  redress  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  not  less  disagreeable  to  them,  than 
.embarrassing  to  Great  Britain,  and  which  may  threaten  the  good 
understanding  which  ought  to  be  faithfully  cultivated  by  both. 
The  copy  of  a  bill  brought  into  congress  under  the  influence  of 
violations  committed  on  our  flag,  gives  force  to  this  latter  consi- 
deration.    Whether  it  will  pass  into  a  law,  and  at  the  present  ses- 
sion, is   more  than  can  yet  be  said.     As  there  is  every  reason  to 
believe  that  it  has  been  proposed  with  reluctance,  it  will  proba- 
bly not  be  pursued  into  effect,  if  any  hope  can  be  supported  of  a 
remedy,  by  an  amicable  arrangement  between  the  two  nations. 
There  is  a  further  consideration  which  ought  to  have  weight 
in  this  question.     Although  the  British  seamen  employed  in 
carrying  on  American  commerce,  be  in  some   respects  lost  to 
their  own  nation,  yet  such  is  the  intimate  and  extensive  con- 
nection of  this  commerce,  direct  and  circuitous,  with  the  com- 
merce, the  manufactures,  the  revenue  and  the  general  resources 
of  the  British   nation,  that  in  other  respects  its  mariners,  on 
board  American  vessels,  may  truly  be  said  to  be  rendering  it  the 
most  valuable  services.     It  would  not  be  extravagant  to  make  it  a 
question,  whether  Great  Britain  would  not  suffer  more  by  with- 
drawing her  seamen  from  the  merchant  vessels  of  the  United 
States,  than  her  enemies  would  suffer  from  the  addition  of  them 
to  the  crews  of  her  ships  of  war  and  cruisers. 

Should  any  difficulty  be  started  concerning  seamen  born  within 

the   British  dominions,  and  naturalized  by   the  United  States 

.   since  the  treaty  of  1785,  you  may  remove  it  by  observing  ;  First, 

that  very  few,  if  any,  such  naturalizations  can  take  place,  the  law 

here  requiring  a  preparatory  residence  of  live  years,  with  notice 

of  the  intention  to  become  a  citizen  entered  of  record  two  years 

before  the  last   necessary  formality,  besides  a   regular  proof  of 

I  and  moral  character,  conditions  little  likely  to  be  complied 


with  by  ordinary  seafaring  persons.  Secondly,  tnat  a  discontinu- 
ance of  impressments  on  the  high  seas  will  preclude  an  actual 
collission  between  the  interfering  claims.  W  ithin  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  each  nation,  and  in  their  respective  vessels  on  the  high 
seas,  each  will  enforce  the  allegiance  which  it  claims.  In  other 
situations  the  individuals  doubly  claimed,  will  be  within  a  juris- 
diction independent  of  both  nations. 

Secondly.  The  British  pretensions  to  domain  over  the  narrow 
seas  are  so  obsolete,  and  so  indefensible,  that  they  never  would 
have  occured  as  a  probable  objection  in  this  case,  if  they  had  not 
actually  frustrated  an  arrangement  settled  by  Mr.  King  with  the 
British  ministry  on  the  subject  of  impressments  from  American 
vessels  on  the  high  seas.  At  the  moment  when  the  articles  were 
expected  to  be  signed,  an  .exception  of  the  S  narrow  seas"  was 
urged  and  insisted  on  by  lord  St.  Vincent ;  and  being  utterly  in- 
admissible on  our  part,  the  negociation  was  nbandoned, 

Theobjection  in  itself  has  certainly  not  the  slightest  foundation. 
The  time  has  been  indeed  when  England  not  only  claimed,  but 
exercised  pretensions  scarcely  inferior  to  full  sovereignty  over  the 
seas  surrounding  the  British  i->les,  and  even  as  far  as  cape  Hnis- 
tere  to  the  south,  and  Van  Staten-,  in  Norway,  to  the  north.  It 
was  a  time,  however,  when  reason  had  little  share  in  determining 
the  law,  and  the  intercourse  of  nations,  when  power  alone  decided 
questions  of  right,  and  when  the  ignorance  and  want  of  concert 
among  other  maritime  countries  facilitated  such  an  usurpation. 
The  progress  of  civilization  and  information  has  produced 
a  change  in  all  those  respects,  and  no  principle  in  the  code  of 
public  law,  is  at  present  better  established,  than  the  common 
freedom  of  the  seas  beyond  a  very  limited  distance  from  territo- 
ries washed  by  them.  This  distance  is  not  indeed  fixed  with 
absolute  precision.  It  is  varied  in  a  small  degree  by  written  au- 
thorities, and  perhaps  it  may  be  reasonably  varied  in  some  degree 
by  local  peculiarities.  But  the  greatest  distance  which  would  now 
be  listened  to  any  where,  would  make  a  small  proportion  of  the 
narrowest  part  of  the  narrowest  seas  in  question. 

What  are,  in  fact,  the  prerogatives  claimed  and  exercised  by 
Great  Britain  over  these  seas  ?  If  they  were  really  a  part  of  her 
domain,  her  authority  would  be  the  same  there  as  within  her  other 
domain.  Foreign  vessels  would  be  subject  to  all  the  laws  and 
regulations  framed  for  them,  as  much  as  if  they  were  within  the 
harbours  or  rivers  of  the  country.  Nothing  of  this  sort  is  pre- 
tended. Nothing  of  this  sort  will  be  tolerated.  The  only  in- 
stances in  which  these  seas  are  distinguished  from  other  seas,  01 
in  which  Great  Britain  enjoys  within  them,  any  distinction  ovei 
other  nations,  are  first,  thd  compliment  paid  by  other  flags  to 
hers.  Secondly,  the  extension  of  her  territorial  jurisdiction  in 


certain  cases  to  the  distance  of  four  leagues  from  the  coast.  The 
first  is  a  relic  of  ancient  usurpation,  which  has  thus  long  escaped 
the  correction,  which  modern  and  more  enlightened  times  have 
applied  to  other  usurpations.  The  preogative  has  been  often 
contested,  however,  even  at  the  expense  of  bloody  wars,  and  is 
still  borne  with  ill  will  and  impatience  by  her  neighbors.  At  the 
last  treaty  of  peace  at  Amiens,  the  abolition  of  it  was  repeatedly 
and  strongly  pressed  by  I  ranee  ;  and  it  is  not  improbable,  that  at 
no  remote  day  it  will  follow  the  fate  of  the  title  of  "  King  of 
France,"  so  long  worn  by  the  British  moparchs,  and  at  length 
so  properly  sacrificec^to*'he  lessons  of  a  magnanimous  wisdom. 
As  ar  as  this  homage  to  the  British  flag  has  any  foundation  at 
present,  it  rests  merely  on  long  usage  and  long  acquiessence, 
which  are  construed,  as  in  a  few  other  cases  of  maritime  claims, 
into  the  effect  of  ISgeneral  though  tadt  convention.  The  second 
instance  is  the  extension  of  the  territorial  jurisdiction  to  four 
leagues  from  the  shore.  This  too,  as  far  as  the  distance  may 
exceed  that  which  is  generally  allowed,  rests  on  a  like  founda- 
tion, strengthened,  perhaps,  by  the  local  facility  of  smuggling, 
and  the  jjfcculiar  interest  which  Great  Britain  has  in  preventing 
a  prac;ice  affecting  so  deeply  her  whole  system  of  revenue,  conv 
jmerce,  and  manufactures  :  whilst  the  limitation  itself  to  four 
leagues  necessarily  implies  that  beyond  that  distance  no  territo- 
rial jurisdiction  is  assumed. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  origin  or  value  of  these  prerogatives 
over  foreign  flags  in  one  case,  and  within  a  limited  portion  of 
these  seas  in  another,  it  is  obvious  that  neither  of  them  will  be 
violated  by  the  exemption  of  American  vessels  from  impress- 
*nents,  which  are  no  wise  connected  with  either ;  having  never 
been  made  on  the  pretext  either  of  withholding  the  wonted  ho- 
mage to  the  British  flag,  or  of  smuggling  in  defiance  of  British 
laws. 

This  ex  tension  of  the  British  law  to  four  leagues  from  the 
shore  is  inf  erred  from  an  act  of  parliament  passed  in  the  year 
1736,  (9  G.  2.  C.  35)  the  terms  of  which  comprehended  all  ves- 
sels, foreign  as  well  as  British.  It  is  possible  however,  that 
the  former  are  constructively  excepted. — Should  your  inquiries 
ascertain  this  to  be  the  case,  you  will  find  yourself  on  better 
ground,  that  the  concession  here  made. 

With  respect  to  the  compliment  paid  to  the  British  flag,  it  is 
also  possible  that  more  is  here  conceded  than  you  may  find  to  be 
necessary  After  the  peace  of  1783,  this  compliment  was  pe- 
remptorily withheld  by  iYance,  in  spite  of  the  remonstrances  of 
Great  Britain ;  and  it  remains  for  your  inquiry,  whether  it  did 
not  continue  to  be  refused,  notwithstanding  the  failure  at  Ami- 
ens to  obtain  from  Great  Britain  a  formal  renunciation  of  the 
claim. 


10 

From  every  view  of  the  subject,  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  that- 
the  exception  of  the  narrow  seas,  from  the  stipulation  against 
impressments,  will  not  be  inflexibly  maintained.  Should  it  be  so, 
your  neg,<- nation,  will  be  at  an  end.  The  truth  is,  that  so  great  a 
proportion  of  our  trade  direct  and  circuitous,  passes  through  those 
channels,  and  such  is  its  peculiar  exposure  in  them  to  the  wrong 
practised,  that  with  such  an  exception,  any  remedy  would  be  very 
partial.  And  we  can  never  consent  to  purchase  a, partial  remedy, 
by  confirming  a  general  evil,  and  by  subjecting  ourselves  to  our 
own  reproaches,  as  well  as  to  those  of  other  nations. 

Third,  It  appears,  as  well  by  a  Ietter4»om  Mr.  Thornton,  in 
answer  to  one  from  me,  of  both  which  Copies  are  inclosed,  as 
fr^m  conversations  with  Mr.  Merry,  that  the  facility  which  would 
be  given,  particularly  in  the  British  channel,  by  the  immunity 
claimed  for  American  vessels,  to  the  escape  of  traitors,  and  the 
desertation  of  others  whose  services  in  time  It-war  may  be  par- 
ticularly important  to  an  enemy,  forms  one  of  the  pleas  for  the 
British  practice  of  examining  American  crews,  and  will  be  one 
of  the  objections  to  a  formal  relinquishment  of  it. 

This  plea,  like  all  the  others,  admits  a  solid  and  satisfactory 
reply.  In  the  first  place,  if  it  could  prevail  at  all  against  the  neu- 
tral claim,  it  would  authorize  the  seizure  of  the  persons  described 
only,  and  in  vessels  bound  to  a  hostile  country  only  ;  whereas 
the  practice  of  impressing  is  applied  to  persons  few  if  any  of 
whom  are  alleged  to  be  of  either  description,  and  to  vessels 
whithersoever  bound,  even' to  Great  Britain  herself.  In  the  next 
place,  it  is  not  only  a  preference  of  a  smaller  object  on  one  side 
to  a  greater  object  on  the  other ;  but  a  sacrifice  of  right  on  one 
side,  to  expediency  on  the  other  side. 


Gaylamount 
Pamphlet 
Binder 

Giylord  Bros..  Inc. 

Stockton,  Calif. 
T.M.Reg.  U.S.  Pat.  Off. 


